[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 105 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2115-S2117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
TAX CONVENTION WITH CHILE
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S2115, June 15, 2023, in the third column, the following
appears: EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
The online Record has been corrected to read: EXECUTIVE SESSION
TAX CONVENTION WITH CHILE
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to
consider Executive Calendar No. 1, Treaty Document 112-8.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The treaty will be stated.
[[Page S2116]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Treaty Document No. 112-8, Tax Convention with Chile
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask that the treaty be considered as having advanced
through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the
presentation of the resolution of advice and consent to ratification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 1,
Treaty Document No. 112-8, Tax Convention with Chile, and a
resolution of advice and consent to ratification with 2
reservations and 2 declarations.
Charles E. Schumer, Robert Menendez, Margaret Wood
Hassan, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Benjamin L. Cardin,
Catherine Cortez Masto, Patty Murray, Thomas R. Carper,
Christopher Murphy, Chris Van Hollen, Tammy Baldwin,
Jack Reed, Richard J. Durbin, Tim Kaine, Jeanne
Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, Christopher A. Coons, Cory
A. Booker.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls
for the cloture motions filed today, June 15, be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Illinois be given 10 minutes to speak immediately and, following
her, 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2023
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today as both chair of the
Subcommittee on Aviation Safety but, more importantly, as a pilot who
is only alive because of the swift actions of an experienced flight
crew.
I have lived the experience of piloting a Blackhawk that was struck
by a rocket-propelled grenade in flight and entered into flight
conditions immediately that flight simulators taught me would be
catastrophic. But having the experience of flying in the toughest
conditions had shown me that that was not the case.
I have probably spent more hours in the most sophisticated flight
simulators than any other Senator of this body, short of, of course,
Senator Kelly, our astronaut. In my over a decade of training as a
military pilot, every time--every single time--that we simulated a
total loss of all aircraft avionics that would follow with a total loss
of hydraulic power, we died in that simulator. We did this every year,
and we simulated it over and over. It was not survivable.
We never simulated an RPG explosion in the lap of one of the pilots
wherein any of the crew could survive. Why did we never simulate that
condition? Nobody ever imagined that it would ever happen and have the
crew survive or that the aircraft would not break apart in flight.
Yet, on that day in Iraq--on that day when that rocket-propelled
grenade landed in my lap and exploded--we did. The aircraft held
together, and we survived it. We were 10 feet above the trees, and we
looked, and we had no avionics, and we could tell that the hydraulics
were next. If we had relied on that simulator training, we would have
done what dark pilot humor had always said, which was: You are going to
die anyway. Let's change spots and leave a mystery for the acting
investigators to figure out what the heck happened.
But we didn't. We fought to fly that aircraft because our training in
the cockpit, in real-world flight conditions, taught us that we could
do it. Led by the expertise of my pilot in command, we landed that
aircraft and saved our entire flight crew.
I would not be alive today but for the in-cockpit experience gained
through many hard-earned flight hours over a decade of training. It was
actual, real-world experience, not a flight simulation, that made us
prepared and ready to respond to a life-threatening emergency, with
level heads and swift action--with instinct.
Of course, my experience is not unique. When the hero of the Hudson,
Captain ``Sully'' Sullenberger, implores Congress to understand that
the combined 40,000-plus flight hours between him and his first officer
were critical in saving 155 lives on that January 15, 2009, day, we
should listen.
Do you think that, prior to that day, there were any flight
simulations of a dual-engine failure from a bird strike, followed by
ditching in the Hudson River, by any airline? by any flight school? No.
In fact, when that very simulation was done after the miracle on the
Hudson, even with the flight crews experiencing and expecting the
scenario, they still crashed time after time in that simulated
emergency. It was pilot in-cockpit flying experience that saved the
miracle on the Hudson.
My experience as both a pilot, who was responsible for the lives of
my crew and passengers in the most hazardous conditions, along with my
commitment to my leadership role on the Aviation Safety Subcommittee,
means that I cannot be complicit in efforts to compromise on safety for
the flying public. There has never been a worse time to consider
weakening pilot certification requirements to produce less experienced
pilots.
The year 2023 has already been chilling for our civil aviation
system. We have witnessed a disturbing rise of near deadly close calls
that has led the FAA to convene an unprecedented safety summit, where
the Acting Administrator has warned that the entire aviation industry
needs to not grow complacent because complacency kills.
The NTSB has treated a recent uptick in near misses as a national
crisis and has investigated these incidents to determine whether
systemic problems are a root cause. Some observers believe the surge in
hiring that was necessary to address the perfect storm of pre-pandemic
buyouts and the post-COVID travel boom has simply resulted in a less
experienced workforce that is more prone to mistakes.
We must treat these unnerving near misses as red flags and be
proactive in strengthening safety requirements to make sure that these
close calls do not become precursor events to a catastrophic incident.
The last thing we should be doing is weakening part 121 certification
standards. We have had seven close calls most recently, and the answer
is not ``let's reduce pilot training.'' It is the pilot who prevented
those close calls from becoming accidents in the first place.
As a pilot, I learned the value of real-world experience. Trust me.
Hours in that cockpit, in the sky, matter. Simulators are a valuable
training tool. I applaud them, and I have made use of them, but they
are no substitute for the real thing. Lifesaving instincts are earned
through hours of hard work and dedication through the craft of piloting
a real aircraft with real stakes.
Look, I know the experience of the perfect storm of major carriers
buying out thousands of their most experienced pilots, followed by a
post-pandemic surge in air travel demand, has created a temporary
shortage of pilots and first officers, especially for regional
airlines. The consequences for communities, especially with rural
airports, have been real and painful. I see them myself in my own home
State. I understand the temptation to cut corners or to chase the false
promise of a quick fix to a systemic challenge. But weakening a pillar
of our post-Colgan reforms won't magically solve the need for more
pilots.
Believe me. I have asked for the specifics. If we reduce the minimum
flight hours from 1,500 to 1,000, how many more pilots would be
available in the following calendar year? What about 800 hours? What if
we drop it to 500 or to 250? How many more pilots would you have then?
Yet, today, I have received no precise estimate, let alone any credible
projections.
At this point, I question whether the special interests pushing to
weaken the 1,500-hour rule even have a methodology or model to measure
the relationship between certain certification standards and the
availability of pilots.
I am not the only one who has stress-tested industry assertions and
come away with more questions than answers. Last year, the FAA rejected
a
[[Page S2117]]
petition for an exemption to the flight hours requirement and
explicitly stated:
The FAA has previously concluded the argument that an
exemption would serve to address a pilot shortage is overly
simplistic and does not present a persuasive argument.
Foreign carriers that are not subject to the 1,500-hour rule are also
experiencing workforce challenges post-pandemic. Yet they are not
reducing their requirements. This bolsters the FAA's conclusion.
Simply put, reducing hours, even just for restricted ATPs, represent
a serious risk with no reward. It represents an unacceptable
backsliding, a dangerous complacency, in an industry where complacency
kills. As chair of the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, as a professional
aviator, and as a private pilot, I am holding the line on safety.
I want to encourage my colleagues to focus on the long list of other,
more urgent aviation issues facing our country. Now is not the time to
go backward on a post-Colgan safety system, and there has not been a
single aviation fatality due to pilot error since the 1,500-hour rule
was put into effect.
Now is not the time to put corporate profits ahead of the lives of
our constituents who may want to board a commercial flight in the
future. A vote to reduce the 1,500-hour rule for pilot training will be
blood on your hands when the inevitable accident occurs as a result of
an inadequately trained flight crew.
I urge my colleagues to uphold the 1,500-hour rule.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Nomination of Julie Rikelman
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in
support of the confirmation of Julie Rikelman to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.
In just a few minutes, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on
Julie Rikelman's nomination, and, soon after, we will vote on her
confirmation.
Julie Rikelman has a distinctively American story. In 1979, her
family emigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union--Ukraine,
to be specific--settling in Massachusetts. Like so many Soviet
immigrants in the 1970s, her family sought freedom, and especially, as
Soviet Jews, they sought religious freedom.
As a child, Ms. Rikelman and her family left behind the only home
they knew. They endured the challenges of beginning anew in an
unfamiliar country, as refugees, mastering a new language and a new
culture. They embraced their new home and became naturalized U.S.
citizens. Ms. Rikelman's experience as a Soviet political refugee
shaped her lifelong commitment to the American legal system as well as
her commitment to true ``justice for all'' and to the fundamental
principles of the rule of law.
With 25 years of experience, her legal career has been nothing short
of stellar. Julie attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She
clerked for Justice Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court and for Judge
Morton Greenberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
She has worked in private practice and in public interest law,
litigating a range of issues, from reproductive rights cases across the
country to civil and criminal cases at both the trial and appellate
levels. She has experience in securities law, antitrust law, election
law, and constitutional law. Ms. Rikelman's Federal and State court
cases have involved defamation, intellectual property, and employment
discrimination claims. She is a brilliant legal mind and brings deep
experience to issues commonly before the First Circuit.
Julie Rikelman has dedicated her career to the protection of
Americans' fundamental rights, including the rights to liberty and
privacy, distinguishing herself as one of our Nation's leading
reproductive rights attorneys. In 2021, she argued the Supreme Court
case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a seminal case in
the history of our highest Court's considering that issue.
I have complete confidence that Ms. Rikelman will bring a broadened
perspective, steadfast integrity, and deep knowledge to the bench. And
I am not alone in my enthusiasm. My office has received letters in
support of Ms. Rikelman's nomination from dozens of individuals and
organizations, including members of the Alaska State Bar, current and
former prosecutors, law enforcement officials, the National Council of
Jewish Women, and many of her former colleagues.
Colleagues describe Julie Rikelman as ``brilliant, committed to the
rule of law, and deeply devoted to honoring the Constitution and
protecting our civil rights and civil liberties.''
These are precisely the qualities we are looking for in a nominee to
a Federal appeals court. We have them in Julie Rikelman.
It is essential that our Nation's courts reflect the diversity of our
country, and Ms. Rikelman, when confirmed, would be the first immigrant
woman and the first Jewish woman to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit. That is what this Nation is all about.
Senator Warren and I are proud and enthusiastically recommend Julie
Rikelman's nomination to President Biden and are proud to speak in
favor of her nomination before the full Senate today. She will make an
exceptional addition to the First Circuit.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on cloture and then on her
confirmation.
I yield the floor.
____________________